Judgment 1. This is an application filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 25.1.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur in C.R. No. 884 of 2002 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 323, 342, 392, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has directed for issuance of summons against them. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. No one appeared for Opposite Party No. 2. 3. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the facts appearing in the complaint petition is nothing but a bundle of falsehood. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 are full brothers. The conduct of Opposite Party No. 2 is bad and he is in the habit of filing false cases against the family members. He referred to Annexure-2 i.e. F.I.R. filed by Opposite Party No. 2 against the petitioners and their family members in December, 2001. He also referred to Annexure-2A which is a police case in which father of both Opposite Party No. 2 and petitioner no. 1, has filed a criminal case against Opposite Party No. 2 and submitted that these annexures clearly go to show that Opposite Party No. 2-corn-plainant is a quarrelsome person and he is in the habit of filing false cases against the family members with whom he has serious differences. Even the father is also against Opposite party No. 2. Therefore, the facts appearing in the complaint petition is patently absurd and the learned Magistrate should have considered all these facts and absurdity of the case and has wrongly taken cognizance without making proper enquiry in the case. 4. Learned A.P.P. defended the order. 5. It is well settled that at the time of taking cognizance and issuance of processes against the accused, the Magistrate has only to see whether the complaint petition discloses an offence and whether there is any evidence in support of the same. It is also well settled that at this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence of the accused. This Court also cannot look into the documents supporting the defence version. The defence of the accused can be considered only during trial. 6. It is also well settled that at this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence of the accused. This Court also cannot look into the documents supporting the defence version. The defence of the accused can be considered only during trial. 6. The allegations in the complaint petition is that when the complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) was going to his house after receiving his monthly salary, the petitioners assaulted him and by showing dagger took away money from him. The complaint petition hence discloses offence against the petitioners. 7. The impugned order shows that the Magistrate after considering the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as also the statement of the witness, who according to the complaint petition was accompanying him passed the impugned order. So, there is no infirmity in the order. 8. I, thus, do not find any merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners, however are at liberty to raise the above objection before the trial court at appropriate stage.